Slashdot Mirror

There is too much stupid joking lately. Look at the beginning of most stories. Maybe 5 or 10 people are making adolescent jokes. Not only do they join every story to act like adolescents, they act like socially-challenged adolescents.

High-tech security is a valuable subject, no matter what is being monitored. Someone asks an interesting question, and a few immature people attack the author of the question!

I came here hoping that someone else had already done the engineering, and I could learn from that, and a few people waste my time.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to give to the rich.

As you said, the lies are extremely extensive. The Bush administration corruption is the worst in U.S. history. Read the reviews of 3 movies and 35 recently published books that say the corruption is extremely intense: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

"Politicians lie all the time, as said above."

The Bush administration corruption is the worst in U.S. history. At least read the reviews of 3 movies and 35 recently published books that say the corruption is extremely intense: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

I get responses like yours a lot. It is extremely frightening. You don't know anything about Neil Bush, apparently, and you didn't even bother to read the linked ABC 20/20 News story. If you had done only that, you would have realized that Neil Bush is heavily involved with the corruption of the Bush family. Like the others, he sells government influence to get money. They are doing it together, and they are doing it extremely extensively.

"Neilsie" has certainly not been repudiated by his family. When Billy Carter took a loan that showed conflict of interest, president Jimmy Carter publicly said no one should give his brother money. "Neilsie" is Barbara Bush's name for Neil.

Check the 20/20 link for Neilsie's himself talking about his casual involvement with prostitution. The Bush family could not get elected to anything if people really understood that their "Christian family values" are a lie. For another example, see this quote from The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty:

"The official family tree provided by the Bush archivists does not include the two mentally retarded daughters of John M. Walker, and lists only two of James Smith Bush's wives, not all four of them; one of Ray Walker's two wives is omitted, and George Herbert Walker III is listed with only two, instead of three, wives."

You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.

At least read the reviews of 3 movies and 35 other books that say the corruption is intense: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

That's sad.

"... looking like a junk heap." It's amazing what a mess the stores are now.

It's even more amazing that a huge company was so dependent on just one person for good management.

A famous venture capital manager said that there is plenty of money and plenty of ideas. The biggest shortage is not enough good managers.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

I didn't know that. It's an awkward and unnecessary usage, however.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

"... there are people in this world that request that the information they receive about important people and issues be based on something other than hearsay."

"Hearsay" is not someone saying "I saw this myself". Hearsay is someone saying, "I heard this, but wasn't there myself." For example, Sharon Bush said she herself saw George W. Bush using cocaine at Camp David. It's plausible; alcoholics use cocaine to lessen the negative effects of drunkenness. George W. Bush and his wife Laura Bush both have said publicly that he was a problem drinker, which is a polite phrase for alcoholic.

You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.

Read the reviews of 3 movies and 35 books yourself: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Then read the books themselves. If you didn't read any of the books, you probably don't suspect the strength of the evidence.

The Bush administration is the most secretive in the history of the United States. There is an entire book written by a Rebublican that talks about the secrecy: Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. There are many situations in which there is information about obvious corruption that will probably never be fully understood because the secrecy is legal, especially after the Bush administration wrote new secrecy laws.

For example, video of George W. Bush's brother was shown on 20/20 last Friday night talking about his prostitutes and situations that obviously involve conflict of interest and misuse of government influence.

"Neil-sie", as their mother Barbara Bush calls him, is fully supported by her. He divorced his wife of 23 years and married a volunteer in Barbara Bush's office.

Read the transcript. What will you do when you hear of literally hundreds of situations like those in which the Bush family is able to hide the full truth, but something inappropriate and probably dishonest obviously happened?

This is an administration that cannot be re-elected, literally cannot be re-elected, unless a large number of people are convinced of the Bush family's Christian and moral and family values. Kerry will win if the voters know the truth. George W. Bush would never have been elected to anything if the voters had known the truth.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

I don't know chrono325, but this fits with my understanding.

The point is that being a cheerleader conferred social benefits. If you weren't an athlete, the only way to get those benefits was as a cheerleader. Andover is a feeder school for Yale, and, supposedly, the customs were a lot the same.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

"Seeing how the comments so far have been moderated, it's quite clear that the moderators are either unaware, or unwilling to be aware of a serious problem in America."

MOD PARENT UP!!!! Exactly right.

You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the innuendo from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.

Please don't be intimidated by someone with unspecified objections, or objections that merely try to draw attention away from the major issues. Consider everything in the light of your own experiences and your own extensive investigation.

If you have never read the books about the Bush family and Bush administration, I suggest you do so. If you read the books, you will see that the corruption is far worse than you are being told.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

HP iPAQ hx4705: $645.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

Fact about Fahrenheit 9/11: It has been extraordinarily successful, grossing a fifth of a billion dollars on a $6 million investment.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good. Are you getting some of the $?

See this book on page 405 for the beginning of a description of the conflicts of interest and government corruption of Jeb Bush, governor of Florida: The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

For the corruption caused by the Bush family in general, see the many descriptions starting on page 397 and continuing throughout chapter 20 to page 428. "A glimpse into the business dealings of the Bush family shows that they acquired their wealth through the intermingling of public policy and private interests." This is Ms. Kelley's overly polite way of saying the Bush family sells the U.S. government to whoever will pay the most.

It's crazy to say the honest President Carter is partisan. It's really, really crazy to defend Jeb Bush.

I knew already, from reading about it for many years, that the Bush family was heavily involved with the Saudi Arabians most disliked by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden says the Bush family's (now former) business associates are preventing needed changes in Saudi Arabia. I knew George W. Bush's father attended a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11. I don't accept Osama bin Laden's violence; I think his ideas for the future of Saudi Arabia are not sensible and not achievable. However, his ideas and the ideas of many Arabs that the U.S. government is supporting corruption in Saudi Arabia seem correct. This corruption has been encouraged by George W. Bush's father.

What I didn't remember was that Neil Bush was involved in business with Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley, Jr., who almost killed President Reagan. Had Reagan died, George H.W. Bush would have become president. Scott Hinckley had "given a lot of money to the Bush family". (See page 384.)

Also, I didn't realize that the Air National Guard began drug testing for cocaine on the same month that George W. Bush dropped out of the Guard. (Page 301.) Alcoholics use cocaine because it helps them drink more, I'm told by an alcoholic friend.

Aside the from the known corruption, there are literally hundreds of coincidences and associations like this where there was a Bush family involvement, and then something bad happened to the United States. For other short descriptions of the widespread corruption, see the reviews of 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the book linked above.

Many Americans, like the person who posted the parent comment, have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt. There is so much corruption that one Slashdot comment cannot even begin to describe it.

Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest

George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest

George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

The corruption is exactly what you would expect with dry drunks in charge. (It is more polite to call them "non-drinking alcholics".)

Other Bush family members have been arrested also. How does your family compare to the Bush family?

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

Plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years. Ten half-lives reduce radiation by a factor of 2 to the 10th, which is 1024. Reducing the radiation of Plutonium by a factor of 1,000 is not enough to make it safe. In 241,000 years, the Plutonium will still be one of the most poisonous substances on earth.

--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. Feel safe?

The head of the ultrasonics research group at Battelle Institute told me about the plans for "glassification" in 1975.

Is it really true this time?

--
Bush: Borrowing money to give to the rich.

"Now we are bringing freedom and terrorists are bringing instability."

First, saying we is incorrect. The U.S. government would kill you if you got in its way. You are not part of any group that includes those U.S. government leaders who want violence.

Second, when Bush invaded an oil-rich Arab country on a pretext, particularly one not connected with al Qaeda, it was a very strong advertisement that brought more "terrorists", not less. ("Terrorists" are those who engage in war, but don't own airplanes.)

In fact, in the 24 times the U.S. government has bombed other countries since the Second World War, all have resulted in more instability and killing, not less.

Violence does not bring democracy. It brings more violence. I did a survey of the literature, and found that some people say the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 2,000,000 in Cambodia. The information given was credible to me. The U.S. government's bombing killed about 150,000 people directly. The destabilization caused the deaths of the rest. The 2,000,000 Cambodians died, but it is not possible to assign blame with accuracy.

The government leaders who say that they will bring democracy to the Middle East with violence are lying; they definitely know that is not historically likely. They are only taking advantage of the ignorance of U.S. citizens, and they know it.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Do you know a good domain registrar? The first step is to find a good registrar. The second step is to solve the domain registration info problem.

My experience with GoDaddy is that the company is very abusive. GoDaddy is always trying to sell something else; there are such a huge number of ads that it interferes with proper operation of their web site. Many of the ads seem to me to try to take advantage of people who don't know much about the Internet.

The GoDaddy web site is, in my opinion, amateurish. There are issues like having a password field with 13 spaces, but actually accepting only 11 characters for a password. (I don't know if they have fixed that since I mentioned it to them.)

It's simply outrageous that a company says they can change the terms of a contract with you without your permission, or even knowing. Legally, that cannot be a contract. A contract only exists if you agree to the terms. You cannot enter into a contract that is so broad that you agree to be bound by any terms in the future.

It's amazing how abusive companies are becoming. They seem to be trying to see who can be the most abusive. Have a look at an Ed Foster column that says that the problem is less in Europe: Anti-Sneakwrap Law is UnAmerican.

I knew a three-year-old who once told me: 1) I can do anything I want. 2) You have no control. This is understandable in a three-year-old, who is merely testing the limits. I don't accept it coming from anyone who is older.

Things are really bad in the U.S. now, it seems. Everything to help powerful people get richer. Nothing to take care of the average person.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

There are a lot of people, on TV and on the Internet, who overanalyze the details of politics, and show no interest in the big issues.

For an example of one of the big issues, consider this: The U.S. government is borrowing money to kill Iraqis.

Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and U.S. taxpayers are supporting the violence. Do you consider that an improvement?

The violence helps rich people like the Bush family and Dick Cheney's friends to profit. (The Bush family says they have sold their interest in Carlyle Group, and they no longer are connected. However, the company is privately held, and there is no way of verifying statements made about ownership.)

A lot of the problems in the U.S. seem to be connected with karma. Make trouble in the world, and your own quality of life will go down.

Those are big issues that are not sufficiently discussed. If they were discussed, many of the complicated projections being made now would be worthless. The U.S. government's system of violence depends on ignorance. Those who discuss politics while avoiding the big issues become part of the system of violence.

--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud

"A recession is when someone you know is out of work.
A depression is when you are out of work."

And a disaster is when all that is happening and the government is borrowing money to kill Iraqis.

Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?

It's karma. Make trouble in the world, and your own quality of life will go down.

I notice that your username is GOD ALMIGHTY. You are exactly the being I wanted to ask: Is it really true that God is against Bush?

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

Most people in the U.S. know little of the activities of their government. The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government cannot be not democratic. How can you know what you are voting for, if you are not allowed to know what the government did?

The problem is with secret actions, not with secret information gathering.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Quote from the article : "But why does the foreign policy establishment want Bush -- a man regarded by most educated Indians with a mixture of hostility and a derision that borders on contempt -- back in the White House?"

Outside of the U.S., Bush and Cheney are the most disliked U.S. president and vice-president in history. A Canadian government leader called Bush an "idiot".

Bush and Cheney are also the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest

George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest

George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

Many Americans have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt.

The U.S. has a difficult time getting good people to run for president:

For example, engaging in inappropriate sex is one of the characteristics of ACOAs, Adult Children of Alcoholics. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton was not an alcoholic, but his parents were violent alcoholics. The book, The Dysfunctional President: Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton, discusses the fact that Bill Clinton's misuse of sexuality is typical of the children of alcoholism-influenced families. The behavior of such children is so typical that every U.S. city has ACOA support groups.

Clinton has a strong interest in government and government policy. He at least has the knowledge to make informed decisions.

Bush, however, is a recovered alcoholic, and acts exactly the way recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13. Bush has never shown a strong interest in government and government policy.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

"Slashdot's increasingly left-leaning story postings..."

People who work with computers have to think carefully and logically, or they won't be successful. There is nothing illogical about being Republican, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are the most secretive and corrupt administration in U.S. history, or at least in the last 100 years. They are Re-money-cans, not Republicans. Someone observant enough and able to think clearly enough to do computer work is usually able to see that.

Republicans, Democrats, generals, former government leaders, a Pulitzer Prize winner, political commentators, editorial writers, environmental organizations, and members of the public tell the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Product Lifecycle Dates says, "Windows XP Professional Mainstream Support Retired: 31-Dec-2006". [2 years and 2 months from today]

What does that mean, "Mainstream Support Retired"? Here's what it means for Windows XP Professional:

Microsoft's Support Lifecycle Support Policy FAQ: Non-security hotfix support -- Requires extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending.

This means that you must pay more money, and if for some reason you don't jump through the right hoop at exactly the right time, you cannot have the support at any price.

What does declared product death mean for Windows XP Home? No support of any kind. Microsoft has declared the death of a product most home users will not want to "upgrade" in only two years two months. That's why I say Mr. Bill Gates is the world's most well-known mortician.

XP Pro has been VERY buggy for us. It has not been as bad as Windows ME, but it has been very expensive because it needs updating every month, usually, and because Microsoft has not been willing to fix bugs, even though they have been reported to Microsoft Technical Support CPR (Critical Path Response). For example, Windows XP problems: Port Re-direction.

So, even if you accept the idea that the hundreds of fixes in Service Pack 2, some of them not documented, bring Windows XP to an acceptably buggy state, then we will get only 2 years and 2 months of full support, after being dragged over the coals because of Microsoft's incredible lack of caring and incredible sloppiness in programming.

I find this disgusting, and we are already planning to move our products to Linux.

People in the U.S. seem to fall into two broad groups: Those who know when they are being abused, and those who give excuses for abuse no matter how extreme it is. This has consequences far more extreme than allowing Microsoft's abusive behavior. For example, for half of U.S. citizens see nothing wrong with these examples of U.S. government corruption:

24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Bush's education improvements were partly fraud

Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

That should be, "Nobody will ever need more than 640,000 patches."

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

The AC of the parent comment must be a Republican. "I won't believe Microsoft is being abusive until I see the exact wording I am looking for."

It's just more of the Republican mindset: "I won't believe the U.S. government is extremely corrupt unless you use exactly the right words to tell me." And, "Michael Moore expresses some things badly, so I will ignore all the problems he shows."

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Remember that the space in the line above was put there by Slashdot software.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Would you hire a teenager?

If you did hire a teenager, would you only hire a teenager who had never done something stupid?

If you would never hire a teenager who had done something stupid, would you only hire adults who had never done something stupid as a teenager?

Teenagers are people trying to learn how to be adults. They make mistakes.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

They should have a school for moderators. The parent comment is not off topic; it is funny, if you know the history of crazy comments on Slashdot. I appreciate how the comment tries to make the subject look scientific.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Heisenberg said you cannot know both the position and momentum. But, you can tinker with more minor attributes with complete accuracy?

I'm also hoping someone will explain this.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make his administration look good.

"If I had to pick someone to run my business I sure would not pick someone who would screw his intern in the office..."

Engaging in inappropriate sex is one of the characteristics of ACOAs, Adult Children of Alcoholics. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton was not an alcoholic, but his parents were violent alcoholics. The book, The Dysfunctional President: Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton, discusses the fact that Bill Clinton's misuse of sexuality is typical of the children of alcoholism-influenced families. The behavior of such children is so typical that every U.S. city has ACOA support groups.

Clinton has a strong interest in government and government policy. He at least has the knowledge to make informed decisions.

Bush, however, is a recovered alcoholic, and acts exactly the way recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13. Bush has never shown a strong interest in government and government policy.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.

Your sig: "America: fast becoming a militant fascist theocracy"

Maybe this is a better understanding:

The U.S. government's militant behavior has not been fast. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II.

The violent behavior has nothing to do with religion. Bush only discusses religion so that he can get votes. The U.S. government has been an equal opportunity killer: 3,000,000 people killed since World War II, most of them in Vietnam. The people killed were from many religions.

The U.S. government violence is not really fascist. It is profitist. I don't think those who want profit care about politics, they only engage in manipulating government because that brings easy profit. On the other hand, caring only about money eventually causes the rigid behavior that might be called fascism, but is really a kind of mental illness.

The system works by creating fear so that citizens will allow rich people to engage in secret and not-so-secret violence for profit. Cheney is doing some of the not secret part now, by implying that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a terrorist attack.

Alcoholics are often very likable on the surface; they are anything but likable in reality. They have such inner conflict that they are not easily able to be analytical. Their thoughts are so disorganized that they cannot express complicated ideas easily.

Bush acts exactly like recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13.

Most of what Bush says was written by someone else.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.

It's insane to spend money we don't have.

If you don't like the word insane, what word would you apply to it?

"...the convicted drunk drivers' outright lies..."

Bush and Cheney are the most arrested president and vice president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest

George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest

George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

DUI means "Driving Under the Influence" of alcohol. A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime, a crime that endangers everyone on the road, a crime that often kills people. A DUI conviction means that the driver felt such a strong need to be drunk that he or she was willing to take a chance of murder.

According to his wife Laura Bush and George W. Bush himself, she threatened to leave him because of his drinking.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.

You cannot learn enough about your government by reading weblogs. Read books instead. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books about the present administration of the U.S. government: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.

There is a huge problem with people working in a technological company who have no interest in or knowledge of technology. Not only do they feel pressured to lie when they don't know what they are doing, they can't always detect when they are lying. They become robot liars representing their company.

This kind of thing affects more than the technology industry. It's only natural that people who work in companies that pretend to be sane would vote for a president who pretends to be sane.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.

From the web site: "WordCount data currently comes from the British National Corpus, a 100 million word collection of samples of written and spoken language from a wide range of sources, designed to represent an accurate cross-section of current English usage."

The BNC gives British English usage, not English usage. It does not reflect U.S. English usage. Britain has only 59 million people. The United States has 294 million people. Britain has a small percentage of the total number of English speakers.

This is just an ad agency attempting to advertise to prospective clients. The agency is trying to impress people who aren't very knowledgeable about advertising. A knowledgeable person would be very negative about the agency's misuse of facts.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

But most Americans don't have a clue what is going on. I saw a billboard last night that said, "Remember, it's your money" -- and it was an ad for Bush-Cheney! The administration that insisted tax cuts were the prescription for times of plenty, for times of recession, for times of peace and times of war, has now seen the unwanted side-effects: a languid recovery, and a trillion dollars added to the debt. A budget surplus, the first in modern times, converted instantly to massive deficit.

Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a way to start talking about the debt as the balance on our nation's credit card. Maybe if we put overspending into terms that the average consumer could understand, and stuck to those terms, people could finally start to get it. This country produces $11 trillion of wealth every year, and, through our government, we are $7.4 trillion in debt. Maybe if we start comparing the government to a family that's making $110,000 a year, but is $74,000 in debt, we could have a real national debate about government spending. The question is not whether "it's your money," but whether, being $74,000 in debt, it's a good idea for you to get a brand-new credit card and go rack up another $4,000 on it every year -- as Bush and the Republican Congress are now doing.

Especially when massive, unavoidable costs are just over the horizon.

Grover Norquist has declared his goal of drowning the government in a bathtub, and his way of doing it is to spend it into oblivion. The Republican Party has sold out the country by signing on with this brand of destruction. What it's going to yield is not prosperity and limited government, but anarchy and -- very possibly, in the decades to come -- the end of America as an economically powerful beacon of freedom. When our children are serfs for the wealthy who have bought up the country, when the old are baking to death because we can't afford to buy them air conditioners, when the poor and the sick die alone because we can't provide them with basic health care, when the unregulated food makes us sick and the unregulated drugs are a crapshoot, when half the country will never be able to retire and will be forced to work at McDonald's and Wal-Mart until their bodies fail, I hope people remember the name of Grover Norquist, and who it was that put his theories into practice. One percent of this country will always enjoy all the best things in life, but everyone else will be wondering what it was like before our government was drowned, and if those folks back in the '90s and '00s knew how good they had it.

debt clock

The problem is, if they do not get it under balance, the dollar will plummet, and then loose value as people loose faith in it.

This is a real fear in 4-7 years. (I won't go into i18n economy bonds, and how they will weaken until the global economy becomes more bouyant)

The National Debt http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ is the big thing: US $7,375,598,685,765. Your share is $25,078.39 Real money, that YOU (U.S. Citizen) really owe and will really pay off. There are two ways you can pay it off: The Hard way or the MUCH HARDER way. The Hard way requires congress to have a measure of honesty and courage, and an electorate serious about cutting spending. (like any of that will happen). The MUCH HARDER way is to do nothing until inflation reaches triple digits. Since the 25K is about 2-3 times more than the average income, you can either go without a salary for 2-3 years, or have your real income cut in half for 5. Enjoy!!

...cos it's always better to have somebody else doing your job aint it?

Now if you're a shareholder of Nike, then it may help you that Indian programmers are wearing Nikes. If you're the CEO of Nike it sure as hell is going to help you.

If you work in a Nike factory overseas it may well help you. But Indian programmers wearing Nikes aint going to help you when you're working in a McJob wishing you could afford to buy a pair of Nikes for your kid.

Never confuse what's good for large corporate shareholders with what's good for you as a jobbing programmer.

This ecconomic strategy was brought to you by the same people that brought you the US National Debt... http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

You spend what you EARN. If you don't you end up in debt. It's not rocket science or *gasp* ecconomics. The idea of turning yourself into a service ecconomy is fine if you're Ireland, but if you're a large country you actually have to make and sell stuff to support your ecconomy.

Basically, it's another tax... instead of using the existing tax money to pay for these services, they're grabbing at a new revenue stream, and keeping the old tax revenue stream too.

Sure, it's more direct this way, but we're already paying for this.

At the risk of burning through huge amounts of karma (depending on who the current mods are), no, we are not.

People who say this cost should come out of our taxes need to quit bitching about how high taxes are and then whining about extra stuff like this when their taxes get cut. The fact is we are running a huge deficit in this country, we have a mind-boggling public debt and we're getting deeper and deeper into it every day. Stuff like this, if it's undertaken (VoIP wiretapping, I mean) needs to be paid for, and you can't just say "well, use the money I already paid for regular phone service" any more than you can say the military should fund itself with the lottery tickets you bought last week. The fact is this money all goes to different places and it doesn't even cover what it's supposed to be paying for anyway, let alone any new programs.

The alternative is you just don't do anything new and you cut things that already exist and aren't being paid for, which is a solution a lot of people support, but the fact is there's a limit to that. What exactly are you going to cut? Cutting law enforcement (as Bush has been doing) seems a bit stupid in this day and age. Cutting the military seems foolhardy right now, as over-extended as we already are. The other biggest government expenditures are social security and interest on the national debt (which, as mentioned, is growing quickly). There's very little actual discretionary spending in the budget, and most of that has been cut to the bone already.

So you can't really cut anymore, and stuff's gotta be paid for. Right now, we're not paying for it, and people still complain that we're paying too much?

If you want all your "tax" payments in one place, then fine - but don't then bitch about those payments being too high when we're already not even paying our bills.

I saw a chart recently of the national debt over time. It was more or less under a trillion until 1980 or so, then it just rose and rose and rose and rose, until Clinton, where there was a genuine inflection point, then after 2000, the chart just went off the scale. It was really quite dramatic. And, I should mention, I'm not a Democrat in the slightest. I just don't understand presidential politics when charts like this counter the party lines. I wonder if it is better to have a Democratic figurehead as president with Libertarian-leaning people in the trenches at local and state levels.

I don't remember exactly which chart I saw, but, from a search, here is a good one and here is another version.

I want to correct one thing, which only strengthens the point you were making:

deficit payments keep increasing

It seems that the debt has become invisible, all anyone ever mentions is the deficit.

There is no such thing as deficit payments. It's debt payments that are increasing. You could reduce the deficit by 99% and debt payments would still be increasing. As long as there is any decific the debt is increasing and debt payments are increasing. Any time to word "surplus" pops up everyone screams "tax cuts". It's not a freaking "surplus"! We're still 7.3 thrillion dollars in debt! There is no surplus unless it's more than $7.3 trillion!

One third of the national budget is nothing but interest payments on the debt! And where do those interest payments go? To the richest people in the country holding Treasury bills, and to foreign investors! One third of all of our taxes does nothing but pump money from the general US public into the pockets of wealthiest few or to pump it out of the country. And if we paid off the national debt, well those people would still invest their money. They would just invest it somewhere productive, like into new businesses or expanding businesses. What better way to create jobs and stimulate the economy? Quit cutting taxes and just pay off the damn debt!

Sorry, I didn't mean to rant at you, it's just a general rant that's been building up.

If Libertarians want to cut spending and eliminate taxes, well fine. But they need to pay off the debt first, which means holding off on tax cuts.

-

Would you like your taxes low or would you like NASA funded properly? It doesn't seem like you can have both.

The Hubble has been great, but I believe that we need to focus on observations from the l2 point. Execution of Bush's 'plan' to go back to the moon first would push the technology for that mission, but somehow I don't think that he will ever come across with the money; too busy give contracts to Haliburton. Really all we need to do is focus on getting a spending bill through congress , because Bush hasn't vetoed a spending bill his entire time in office.

Sometimes I think that the world forgets what drove the U.S. to the moon, competition. If our European (and Asian) friends want to see progress on space issues, I suggest that you pressure your own government for the funding, not your 'rich' Uncle Sam (he's a little strapped for cash right now). A little competition always get America going.

People were saying these things and freaking out just like this when Reagan passed his tax cuts and less than ten years later the debt was gone, grown out of by the huge economic boom they inspired.

What?????!!!!! *Boggle*

No wonder people voted for Reagan and Bush Jr. believing shit like that.

The debt has constantly grown for at least a century and practically tripled under Reagan. The deficit has mostly grown as well, except for the years under Clinton where it finally went down and was just about to become a surplus before Bush passed his tax cuts.

See:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/index.php
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/graphs.htm
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/5Debt.htm

Please... we've got a 7 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT. I don't care how big or small the deficit is... we should not have cut taxes till the debt was paid off. Bush and the republicans were totally irresponsible for cutting taxes; instead, they should have kept taxes high and cut the hell out of services to get that debt under check.

We truly do need a third party. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can keep the house in good order. *sigh*

France (and Germany) have been exceeding the EU's limit of deficit spending which is 3% of GDP.

In addition, it doesn't look like Europe's education system is fairing too well either, and it's generally agreed that education is required for a healthy economy.

It is hard to compare directly education between different countries, but it seems like Europe and the rest of the world has catched up a lot when it comes to science after US has dominated in science since WW II (for understandable reasones). And you do realise that even for top universities in Europe the students don't have to pay much or anything in tuition fees, so that even middle class families can send a bright kid to a top university (something like Bush being sent to Yale because he was so bright).

There American , isn't not-for-protif implied.

'The estimated population of the United States is 294,256,444
so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,535.31.'

Interesting that the Canadian government can choose not to disclose the money spent on the contract. That's definitely in contrast to here in the US where even a teacher's pay is public record.

Not anybody really uses this information, considering we are nearly $8 Trillion in debt.

So being poor means that the risks don't apply to you? Get stuffed.

In the first place, many people simply do not know what the risks are. Why? They are not technically literate. Why? Because (at least in the U.S.) our public school systems (and even community colleges and some Universities) turn out legions of people with diplomas and degrees who cannot write a cogent and grammatically correct essay, or add two fractions, or tell you the names of all the states in the union -- much less make informed decisions about what security measures to take when using computers and which software to use. (I don't need a reference for this fact: I've seen it first hand from teaching within all three types of learning instituion for many years.)

Now, I'm not saying that the companies offering free services are bound to secure them. But "Get stuffed" sounds a little condescending. Of course risks apply to poor people. But they aren't really the same risks, are they? An affluent computer user can afford the time spend on learning how to avoid these risks, or pay someone to install firewalls, perform backups, and take other protective measures. Therefore, that person doesn't assume the same risk as the poor person using a public terminal.

If you push forward all you can do is go up.

Yeah, whatever. I've heard this one all my life. It doesn't mesh with reality by ignoring some basic facts. Let us suppose (by some miracle) that everyone on the planet adopts your stance and "pushes forward" unhindered by poor social skills, a defeatest attitude, a lousy education, bad health, or low intellect. Just exactly how much pie is there to go around? How many people can realistically make it to the top? Here's the bad news: Without a bottom, there is no top! The success of a few absolutely and unconditionally depends upon the failure and poverty of the many -- this is inescapable in an economic system such as ours. So, don't try to sell me this b.s. song I've heard so many times about "If you're honest, put in a hard day's work, get an education, keep your nose clean and to the grindstone, ad nauseum, then YOU TOO can SUCCEED!"

The deck is stacked against the little guy. If you make a few financial mistakes early in life, or are stricken with some medical calamity, you take a serious economic hit. And then it begins to spiral out of control. You can't pay your debts and so you get a bad credit rating. Then, you miss out on many good job opportunities because you have bad credit. To make matters worse, banks and credit card companies lobby to make it nearly impossible to declare bankruptcy, and the government tells us to live within our means. Meanwhile, we (the U.S.) are collectivly saddled with $7 trillion in debt -- that's nearly $25,000 owed by every man, woman, and child in the country.

"Oh look, it's a bouncing baby boy! Welcome to the wide wonderful world. It is your oyster! By the way, here is a bill for $25,000. Collection proceedings will begin tomorrow!"

"Waaaaahhh! Momma ... MOMMA!!! Waaah!"